Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock (UPC-COA-0000003/2026)
Decision date:
16 March 2026
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision concerned an appeal brought by Ecovacs concerning its application for review of an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence.
- Ecovacs had applied to the Düsseldorf LD for an order for inspection and preservation of evidence at Roborock’s trade fair stand. The Düsseldorf LD granted the order ex parte on the basis that there was a demonstratable risk of evidence being destroyed, removed or altered by means of a software update. The inspection was subsequently carried out on 7 September 2025 with an expert report submitted on 15 October 2025.
- Following the inspection, Roborock requested a review of the order. The Düsseldorf LD revoked the order, finding that Ecovacs had disregarded its duty under Rule 192.3 RoP to present the facts completely and correctly when applying for the order. Ecovacs had represented that the trade fair offered the sole opportunity to determine whether Roborock was active on the European market and directly offering or distributing the contested products to German customers. However, Ecovacs had failed to disclose that Roborock was already directly offering and selling the contested products to German customers via Amazon Germany. This was apparent from Ecovacs' statement of claim in the parallel main proceedings, filed within hours of the evidence preservation application, but the information had not been included Ecovacs’ evidence preservation application itself and therefore the Düsseldorf LD had not been aware of the fact.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed Ecovac’s appeal, upholding the Düsseldorf LD’s revocation of the order in its entirety. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Rule 192.3 RoP imposes a heightened disclosure obligation on applicants for ex parte evidence preservation orders. Applicants must disclose, and not leave out, any material facts that might be relevant for the court’s assessment, including facts relevant for the proportionality assessment. The court characterised Ecovacs’ statements not as “mere clerical errors or details of an insignificant nature”, but as "omissions and distorted accounts of material facts" that were of central importance for the Düsseldorf LD's assessment of whether to allow the request at all.
- The Court of Appeal also rejected Ecovacs’ suggestion that a referral should be made to the CJEU to clarify the scope of “relevant evidence” obtainable under Article 7 of the enforcement directive, finding the suggestion irrelevant as the real issue was Ecovacs’ duty of disclosure under Rule 192.3 RoP.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.